Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1887-02-25
As Laid Down by Judge Pike OF Toledo
TIE LIQUOR QUESTION.

liiB BlV1UOK QUESIlON.
Judge Pies Charges in tie johnson Raia,dn
Csc-A VIE My Recover Domagcs from
Sdioonist.
There are some interesting points in the
charge of Judge Pike to the Try in the
case Of Lydia johnson w Evuri Poll
man.
Mrs johnson sued Polman, snlOonist,
for $4,000 damages for selling liquor to
her husband, Frank Johnson, after she
had notified said saloonst not to sell il,
A defence was set up that Mrs. johnson
subsequently Withdrew said notice, and in
answer TO this the plaintiff Set up tho; she
had been coerced by her husband into
making the withdrawal.
Judge Pike In charging the jury cited
the sections of the statutes under which
the action was brought and rs this law is
not generally known it may he well to here
reproduce his remarks OH that subject
"Seclion 4357 provides that every wife
injured in person or property or means OF
support by an intoxicated person or in
consequence Of intoxication, habituul or
otherwise, OF and person, SHALL after Civ
ing and during the existence of notice
provided by the section OF the statute to
which we shall presently refer, have a
right of action in her name, against any
person, who by selling or giving intoxicat-
ing liquors in violation of law has caused
intoxicatiOn to result in whole or in part,
TO said persons complaining-in this case
the wlfe-and the owner of any bnilding
or premises aud the lessor renting or leas-
ing the same, having knowledge that in
ioxicating liquors are to be sold therein in
violation of law, can he held liable in the
same action jointly with the party who is
SAID to have been selling those Intoxicating
liquors.
Sec. 1865 provides that such wife, liable
to he injured by any sale OF inIoxIcat-
ing liquors to such person, and desiring TO
prevent the sale Of intoxicating liquors 10
such persons, whether such person il in,oX
| icated or in the habit of becoming intoXi-
| Gated. shall give noiice either verbally or
| in writing, in the presence of n witness, to
| the person SO selling the intoxicating
| liqnors or to the owner or lessor of the
premises wherein such Intoxicating liquors
were sold or given away"
After citing what was necessary to be
proven, the judge touched upon the Sun
day question, n question which at present
is Of absorbing interest in Toledo. Said
he:
"And among these statutory provisions
we say it Is unlawful, and party may he
prosecuted for furnishing or selling intox-
icatiug liquoIs to person so intoxicated
or in the habit of getting intoxicated
on the first day of the week, commonly
called Sunday. And il you find after
looking at and weighing all of the evidence
that Frank johnson had, at the time the
wife gave notice to the defendant, Pollman
against the habit of becoming intoxicated
or while he was intoxicated, received IRON
intoxicating liquors, even though such
intoxicalion was in part produced by an
other than the defendent, Pollman, and il
the notice had not been Withdrawn h,
| (Pollman) would still be liable for DANA
ges sustained by the plaintiff under th,
circumstances already stated. notwith
standing you may also find fiom the evi-
dencce that defendant, Pollman, had pal,
the tax under the so-called Scott law"
lie also charged that If defendant, to re.
lieve himself Of liability, claims the notice
to not sell was afterwards withdrawn til,
defendant has the burden OF proving III,
fact by preponderance OF evidence.
Further, he charged the jury that il they
found from the evidence that the wifi,
did Withdraw the notice, dit was the du,,
oil the defendant Pollmnn to take care ant
inquire. or otherwise ascertain, that sucl
withdrawal is not the result OF coercion ol
under influence by the husband toward,
the wife, for If the withdrawal OF tn,
notice by The wife moi to sell her husband
intoxicating liquors was the result Of cUer
cion, which fact the defendent knew, OF
could have asceriained by reasonable in
quiry or otherwise, that such Withdrawal
il the mere result of coercion or undue in
fuence by the husband towards the wife
which reasonable inquiry he neglected tc
make, the defendant would not he excused
from selling liquor, aud he would be liahl,
for damages # the injuries to the wife are
the resul, Of ntoxicaliom, caused in Who'll,
or in part by the defendant after sait
notice."
He charged lha. if other persona lla
contributed TO Johnson's intuxicalon, Poll
man woull still be liable Tor injuries CARS
ed to plaintiff by Illegal sales after notice
Said he:
"Every married man owes to his wifi,
maintenance. She has M interest in hi
earnings, his Labor, and il his property
necessary f'r her SUPP ort and comfort
and if she is deprived Of Them, or Is injnr
ed In her person by lle violence Of he
husband while he IN intoxicated, su,h in.
toxication being produced 10y the illega
act Of defendant, she is entitled not Onl.
TO the actual damages which she has sns
tanned under such circumstances, but ais
10 exemplary damages"
The jury rendered verdict of 500
damages for Mrs. johnson, and the de
iendant has made n motion kur a ney
trial. Blade.